It’s been a while since I originally showed the geographical correlation between areas that used to produce SO2 in the 1970s and the hotspots that showed post 1970 warming. (link)
This also explains why most of the warming occurred over land and in the northern hemisphere. However, I thought I would revisit the subject when I spotted a comment today on WUWT
Warming is seen mostly in winter months and not in summer and mostly in nighttime daily tmin and not in daytime daily tmax.
In both hemispheres.
This is very interesting, because before the clean air acts, the main pollution from SO2 from electricity generation would certainly have occurred in the winter months, and the main time of release would be day time. The second didn’t immediately fit in with my idea that the pollution persists several days “downwind” and used to cause cooling … until I realised that the cooling was caused by the increase in cloud reflecting sunlight. And that this impact is obviously greatest during the day.
This link between temperature and cloud is indeed what another recently WUWT publicised article written by a Finish academic also shows. NO EXPERIMENTAL EVIDENCE FOR THE SIGNIFICANT ANTHROPOGENIC CLIMATE CHANGE as shown in the following graphic:
This neatly links the SO2 to temperature as it does appear to show that low cloud level is the main driver of global temperature. (With the proviso, that I haven’t yet seen the evidential basis so have to assume it is correct). Coincidentally it also suggests that doubling CO2 will cause less than 0.5C warming
Adding this together the geographical correlation of warming, the clear time dependency over decades showing warming after the 1970s tailing off to the pause, the increased temperature effects in the winter when heating was in greatest use in the heavily populated northern hemisphere, the correlation between cloud and global temperature, I would say there is a pretty cast iron case linking SO2 pollution to the short-term warming between 1970 and 2000.
Time to stop saying “SO2 (or related smog-causing pollution) may have causes 1970-2000 warming” and time to assert it clearly did.
It is utterly pointless to attempt to publish something like this. I have watched those that have wasted their lives attempting to get things published and then found that they have wasted 5 years of constant effort trying to get something into one of the climate cult controlled journals, only to have it “debunked” by multiple sham “papers” before it was even published. Publishing in an academic-climate-cult publication is a waste of time and just creates a delay getting it published to the people who will want to read actual science on the internet. Moreover, no one pays me for my views, so I have not the slightest interest in publication.
I am interested in climate because it interests me.
But most importantly, if the global warming scam could ever be silenced by science, if it were really about science, it would have died almost as soon as it was born.